"And yes, for anyone who asks, my early choice in 2008 is Warner"
Fair enough, but supporting Warner or Hillary or even Edwards will cede control of national security back to the Republican Party by default. Why should we do that? Can't a Dem, or even a progressive Dem, be strong and qualified on defense, national security and foreign policy?
If this wasn't a post-9/11, post-Iraq election, I'd say hell yeah to a good handful of Dems. But the middle of the electorate is STILL waiting for someone to step forward from either party and actually deal with the threat and fear of terrorism that 9/11 brought to the fore. Pretending that that's not an issue - which many pundits are doing these days on both sides of the aisle, is naive.
We want to win, but we also want to take control of things the Republicans have bungled, including fiscal responsibility and national security. If we do that they don't have a leg to stand on as a party, and won't for some time to come
Posted by Beacon at November 9, 2005 02:02 PMI wonder how many members of our Fourth Estate feel even a little bit guilty for so strenuously backing Judy when she went to the pen.
Posted by dj moonbat at November 9, 2005 02:38 PMWhy would backing Hillary, Warner or Edwards be "cede control of national security back to Republican Party," Beacon? Republicans haven't done a damn thing to make this country safe; why would anyone be considered worse than them at this point?
Posted by iamcoyote at November 9, 2005 02:49 PMYou won't get your creationist ass handed to you running for re-election to a Kansas school board, unfortunately. Sorry, Kansas kids.
And how certain is it Alito is lying about Roe?
Pretty Damn Certain.
But even if he won't overturn Roe, he'll never vote to strike down any newly enacted Fundamentalist restrictions of the right---which is the same as not having the right exist, practically speaking.
He's as good a winger as the loons could ever dream of---you won't be able to "scare" them off this guy, that's for sure.
Posted by euzoius at November 9, 2005 03:13 PMScott has two defenses and uses them everytime he meets the press. "I am not going to talk about an ongoing investigation" and "I am not going to discuss things of national security." He is also incapable of answering one simple straight forward question. I hope the reporters are enjoying their special entry into the inner circle of this WH. I guess giving Bush a free pass for the last five years doesn't mean you are going to get a truthful answer. Scotty should hang with the rest of them.
Posted by Judith at November 9, 2005 03:20 PMJudy got exactly what she deserved, as far as her current employment status. Good luck Judy. You have the smell of death on you, so I would imagine not too many publishers are going to want you on staff. Call Fox News. They love liars.
Posted by Judith at November 9, 2005 03:28 PMAll and all a pretty good result. Bush is pretty damn radio-active at this point.
Not good enough. The word Republican should be a term employed to scare children and small animals.
Make it so, number one.
Posted by SnarkyShark at November 9, 2005 03:31 PMNot good enough. The word Republican should be a term employed to scare children and small animals.
And the word conservative needs to have an odious smell attached to it like it did in the sixties.
Posted by rlp at November 9, 2005 03:40 PMWhy so much hate?
Posted by A FORMER DEMOCRAT at November 9, 2005 03:44 PMYeah, the corperate cultists trashed the word liberal. Payback is necessary.
One thing!
We managed to come up with a pretty good new brand with the word progressive.(Although down here in GooperWorld(tm) I love to claim the title liberal, just to piss em off)
What will the Cons come up with? Inflexibalism? Stick-in-the-mudism?KorperateFelatoism?
The mind ponders.
Posted by SnarkyShark at November 9, 2005 03:50 PMWhy so much hate?
'Cause the GOP went and fucked up a perfectly good country—and no, I'm not talking about Iraq.
Posted by dj moonbat at November 9, 2005 03:56 PMWhy so much hate?
We hate tratiorous low-life un-american scum-bags.
When you put your party over the good of your country, you became said scum-bags.
The pure hate that was focused on Clinton set the fire, Hannity and Limbaugh fanned the flames.
Now you are experiencing blowback.
It will only get worse.
Soon you will know how it feels to be a black gay person in Bumfuck Texas.
It will not be a poney-on-your-birthday kind of warm fuzzy. Pretty far from it actually. Its in the bible....
You reap what you sow.
Consider this lesson one of many to come.
Posted by SnarkyShark at November 9, 2005 03:58 PMWhy so much hate?Posted by AFDYou need to ask Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Ramirez, Rush Limbaugh, Jay Severin, Larry Elder, Hugh Hewlitt, Michelle Malkin, LGF, Freepers, NewsMax, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, and all your fellow Republicans why they are so full of hate. Perhaps, like Bill Moyer said, "More than they hate liberals, Republicans hate truth." Posted by Mike at November 9, 2005 04:19 PM
Judy got exactly what she deserved,
no she didn't.
- She got to resign
- She gets to write a letter
- She gets some sort of severance package.
All she deserved as to be thrown out on her lying self-serving ass.
Posted by Simp at November 9, 2005 04:32 PMMike, I think you answered that question perfectly. Remember, when the bully on the playground finally meets someone who can kick his ass, he goes home crying to mommy. Payback is truly a bitch, and I am personally enjoying every moment of it. By-the-way, if anyone hates it is because the GOPers have taught us well.
Posted by Judith at November 9, 2005 04:46 PMJudy got exactly what she deserved, as far as her current employment status... I would imagine not too many publishers are going to want you on staff. Call Fox News. They love liars.
Yeah! Maybe they will assign her to service this guy!
Posted by pessimist at November 9, 2005 05:05 PMCoyote,
"Why would backing Hillary, Warner or Edwards be "cede control of national security back to Republican Party," Beacon? Republicans haven't done a damn thing to make this country safe; why would anyone be considered worse than them at this point?"
The average American thinks of the Republican PARTY as the party that's responsible for national security. Unless and until some Democrats convince Americans to change their minds, it's not going to matter how badly any particular Republican official bungles the job, because they can always put up another Republican (McCain, some wild-ass gun-totin' former general, etc.) and say that he'll do it right.
Dems need to embrace national security, and do so credibly. My point was simply that Warner, Hillary, Edwards and a host of other good candidates can't do that. We need someone who can.
(Yes, maybe we can win in '08 on a domestic ticket. But that's not what I want. I want the Republican Party discredited on national security, and I don't want the Dems to give them a chance to rehabilitate their failed policies in Iraq. Take national security away from the RNC and it dies. Maybe forever.)
Posted by Beacon at November 9, 2005 05:07 PMWhy so much hate?
Who's on the "winning side" now asshole. LOL
Get used to losing, your going to do a lot of it.
Pessimist, perfect match. This guy would love Judy Kneepads.
Posted by Judith at November 9, 2005 05:36 PMWhy so much hate?
Oh, this is NOTHING compared to what the Left has faced every hour of every day for the past 20 years.
It's even not hate, it's joy and relief that large parts of our country are going sane again.
Here in Los Angeles the joy is palpable.
Excelsior y'all.
Posted by Ginger Mayerson at November 9, 2005 07:23 PMI know who Bendito is :) people are people, so why shouldn't we disagree.
Posted by lalalala at November 9, 2005 08:35 PMFunny how Buddhism could be called “non-traditional” seeing as how their tradition has an additional 500 or so years on Christianity as an organized and respected religion. rendbend
DougJ, perhaps you meant “non-OUR-traditional” up there?